Search

The Hague Judgments Convention, completed on July 2, 2019, is built on a list of "jurisdictional filters" in Article 5(1) and grounds for non-recognition in Article 7. If one of the thirteen jurisdictional tests in Article 5(1) is satisfied, the judgment may circulate under the Convention, subject to the grounds for non-recognition found in Article 7. This approach to Convention structure is especially significant for countries considering ratification and implementation. A different structure was suggested in the initial Working Group stage of the Convention's preparation, which would have avoided the complexity of multiple rules of indirect jurisdiction, each of which comes with its own complexity and risk for non-uniform interpretation. That alternative structure, however, may in fact be possible under the current Convention text, using Article 15 as the focus for domestic implementation. Article 15 allows the recognition or enforcement of judgments under national law. For countries like the United States, with very liberal existing law on the recognition of foreign judgments, Article 15 may in fact provide a more efficient, effective, and economical approach, even under the Convention. This Article considers the benefits and risks of the complex Convention structure that was chosen, as well as the alternative Convention architecture that was left behind in the negotiation process. It then suggests that the path through Article 15 may well offer a valuable alternative in the implementation and operation of the Convention in countries with existing liberal and non-discriminatory approaches to judgments recognition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The substantive law of judgments recognition in the United States has evolved from federal common law, found in a seminal Supreme Court opinion, to primary reliance on state law in both state and federal courts. While state law often is found in a local version of a uniform act, this has not brought about true uniformity, and significant discrepancies exist among the states. These discrepancies in judgments recognition law, combined with a common policy on the circulation of internal judgments under the United States Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause, have created opportunities for forum shopping and litigation strategies that result in both inequity of result and inefficiency of judicial process. These inefficiencies are fueled by differences regarding (1) substantive rules regarding the recognition of judgments, (2) requirements for personal and quasi in rem jurisdiction when a judgment recognition action is brought (recognition jurisdiction), and (3) the application of the doctrine of forum non conveniens in judgments (and arbitral award) recognition cases. Recent cases demonstrate the need for a return to a single, federal legal framework for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. This Article reviews the history of U.S. judgments recognition law, summarizes current substantive law on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, reviews recent decisions that demonstrate the three specific problem areas, and proposes a coordinated approach using federal substantive law on judgments recognition and state law on related matters in order to eliminate the current problems of non-uniformity and inefficient use of the courts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the U.S. Federal Judicial Center's "Recognition & Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Litigation Guide," and it mentions court rules in the U.S., the "Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law" treatise, and the 1962 Uniform Foreign Money-Judgments Recognition Act. The U.S. Supreme Court's comity analysis in the state law-related case Hilton v. Guyot is mentioned, along with U.S. procedural law and the 1964 Revised Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act.

Copyright of Collected Papers of Zagreb Law Faculty / Zbornik Pravnog Fakulteta u Zagrebu is the property of Sveuciliste u Zagrebu, Pravni Fakultet and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article focuses on the rule of law in the U.S. and within European Union (EU) countries. Topics include the cooperation between the U.S. and EU countries, transparency in the rulemaking process, and equal application of the law. Topics include governmental development of the rule of law and legal education differences between the U.S. and EU countries.

The article discusses the developments in private international law in 2008 which, in the author's view, reflect the influence of European Community legislation and adjudication. It mentions the role of the states of the U.S. in the development of external private international law rules for the country. Also cited is that the clear migration of competence for private international law in the European Union (EU) from Member State governments to the institutions of the European Community has been shown by the Rome I and II Regulations.

Examines how a United States lawyer may ethically engage in a transnational practice. Background on the American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct; Information on tests for determining unauthorized practice of law; Examples illustrating the legal framework for determining a lawyer's unauthorized practice of law; Recommendations for addressing ethical issues concerning the international practice of law.

This article explains that dispute resolution is the most important aspect of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) system. The substantive rules in GATT would be of questionable utility without a legitimate and respected mechanism for dispute resolution applicable across the GATT system. During the Uruguay Round contracting parties have agreed to strengthen the GATT dispute settlement mechanism. It discusses the implications of the adoption by the GATT Council in November 1989 of a Panel Report which found Section 337 of the U.S. Tariff Act of 1930 as inconsistent with Article III, paragraph 4 of GATT. The implications of the findings are important in that the GATT system is founded on economic theory that recognizes the value of private participants in international markets.